This article examines arguments used in the fifth century in favour of unjust action. Three main lines of argument are distinguished: (i) arguments based on ordinary human behaviour, employed by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic and by the Athenians in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, (ii) arguments based on self-interest, found also in Plato and Thucydides, and (iii) arguments based on setting against justice another value, normally courage (ἀνδρεία) or wisdom (σοφία). These arguments are absent in Hesiod and Aeschylus, but present later in Euripides, Thucydides and Plato. Categorising them allows us to understand more precisely a central intellectual phenomenon of the fifth century, and to identify how the argumentation, and therefore the discourse of power, employed in these sources varies according to genre. In particular, Euripides, in his portrayal of individuals, deals with these issues differently, and employs different arguments, from Thucydides, who is concerned with the conduct of poleis.

本文研究了五世纪用于支持不公正行动的论点。争论的三个主要方面是：（i）格劳孔在柏拉图共和国采用的基于普通人类行为的争论以及雅典人在修昔底德的“梅里安对话”中（ii）在柏拉图和修昔底德中也发现了基于自我利益的论点，以及（iii）在反对正义的基础上论证了另一种价值，通常是勇气（ἀνδρεία）或智慧（σοφία） 。这些观点在赫西奥德和埃斯库洛斯中不存在，但后来在欧里庇得斯，修昔底德和柏拉图中出现。对它们进行分类可以使我们更准确地理解五世纪的中心智力现象，并确定在这些资源中使用的论点以及权力话语如何根据体裁而变化。特别是，欧里庇得斯以他对个人的描绘来对待这些问题，并采用了修昔底德（Thucydides）不同的论点，而修昔底德则关注极地主义的行为。